08-04-2007, 09:46 AM
(cont) I do however warn my customers to keep the ozone level down, don't use air fresheners (which are poisoins to begin with) or pine sol due to the chemical interactions but I have yet to have an issue since. Breatheasy is right, the potential for a coctail is there if your customer is an idiot, I stress these points before a sale. Ecoquest is successful because they let people try before they buy and the product has brought relief to 7 million people. That is why EQ is the largest Healthier living technology co in the world and their revenues are steadily increasing by 25-50% each year continuously. They expect to break the billion dollar mark within 10 yrs. In 7 they went from bankrupt to almost a fortune 500 as they were before.
08-04-2007, 10:32 AM
The reason you have the NASA approval is because you can pay $500 and become NASA approved. That's it, there is no great revelation here.
PCO has its benefits, but not in residential applications and not for germicidal applications.
Explain to me what happens to the bacteria when it comes in contact with a UV light? Can you tell me the microwatts produced at 18" or 36" of the Ecoquest product?
08-04-2007, 10:37 AM
Is there such a thing as "friendly oxidizers"?
If hydrogen peroxide doesn't attack me, why are there exposure limits? See http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguide...cognition.html
Originally Posted by NHMoldInspector
* OSHA PEL
The current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) for hydrogen peroxide is 1 part per million (ppm) parts of air (1.4 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m(3))) as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) concentration [29 CFR 1910.1000, Table Z-1].
* NIOSH REL
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has established a recommended exposure limit (REL) for hydrogen peroxide of 1 ppm (1.4 mg/m(3)) as a TWA for up to a 10-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek [NIOSH 1992].
* ACGIH TLV
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has assigned hydrogen peroxide a threshold limit value (TLV) of 1 ppm (1.4 mg/m(3)) as a TWA for a normal 8-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek [DOT 1993, Guides 45 and 47].
* Rationale for Limits
The NIOSH limit is based on the risk of eye, mucous membrane, and skin irritation [NIOSH 1992].
The ACGIH limit is based on the risk of irritation [ACGIH 1991, p. 782]. "
"Effects on Humans: Hydrogen peroxide is an irritant of the eyes, mucous membranes, and skin. Inhalation of high concentrations of the vapor or mist may cause extreme irritation of the nose and throat [Hathaway et al. 1991]. The inhalation of 7 ppm causes lung irritation in humans [NLM 1992]. Severe systemic poisoning may cause headache, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea, tremors, numbness, convulsions, pulmonary edema, unconsciousness, and shock. Exposure for a short period of time to the mist or spray may cause stinging and tearing of the eyes [Hathaway et al. 1991]. Splashes of high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide in the eyes may cause severe corneal damage. At very low concentrations (1 to 3 percent), instillation of hydrogen peroxide into the eye causes severe pain that later subsides [Grant 1986]. Skin contact with liquid hydrogen peroxide causes a temporary whitening or bleaching of the skin; if the skin is not washed promptly, redness and blisters may develop. Ingestion of hydrogen peroxide may cause irritation of the upper gastrointestinal tract and severe damage to the esophagus and stomach [Hathaway et al. 1991]. Hydrogen peroxide has caused DNA damage in in vitro human test systems [NIOSH 1995]. "
08-04-2007, 11:11 AM
You grabbed one piece of info without looking further. Concentrated H2O2 is an extreme mutagen at high levels. However the ammount produced is far less than the .03% that you get in a grocery store. In 1984 there was a big issue about peroxide so there was a bunch of studies done and the clinical guide to pharacology stated that unless a cell is completely immersed in it, no mutation could occur. They also proved that H2O2 cannot make its way into the body via cuts etc because it would oxidise something and all you would have left is water. Inhalation of our products (H2O2 specifically) output is like inhaling the moisture in the air that was broken down by the RCI to begin with. It is in one of these threads, you can fid it cus I don't care anymore, but what you posted was posted before and has already been proven to not apply. Basically in a closet with the door shut for days couldn't concentrate the H2O2 to .03% The ozone level might get to high since it's minimum design size is for 250sq ft so that would be going against manufacturer specs.
Your concern is waranted but you need to do a little more research.
08-04-2007, 11:14 AM
Kieth that is not true. You can pay and get the space foundation approval, not NASA!
08-04-2007, 11:15 AM
It is the oxidisers that kill the microbes, everyone knows UV is a rippoff cuz of the exposure time necessary for effectiveness...so again your point isn't relevant.
Originally Posted by Keith Jordan
Please guys can ya try a lilo harder, at least breatheasy makes legitimate , researched points...you guys aren't even giving me a challenge.
PME- Did you read that "2. Chronic exposure: No signs or symptoms of chronic exposure to hydrogen peroxide have been reported in humans. " But yet we have 7 million units out there. That would be continuous exposure...
If I don't respond for a while it isn't because you trumped me, it is because unless one of you can post a legitimate argument using anything remotely close to applying to my machines, this is a waste of time...at least come up with something feasable. Kev, they have more residential applications than commercial. Have you ever even seen RCI in person, probably not.
08-04-2007, 11:50 AM
Exposure time to UV is only one element to achieving a high kill. There is also Intensity. Since you place your product perpendicular to the airflow and your lamp sizes are 9" in length, how do you propose you are getting enough exposure time to kill the microbes?
I'm concerned at the science Ecoquest uses to market their product.
Where is Ecoquest's test results for treating the air? I've seen the Kansas state test results for treating a surface? Treating air vs treating a surface are two different processes and you can't expect to have the same results on both applications using the same product.
08-04-2007, 12:04 PM
The Uof C report despite the holes in it stated that the Fresh Air with a 6"RCI cell removed over 90% of bioaerosols in the first 60 min.
You missed what I was saying. It is the friendly oxidisers created buy the interaction of the broad spectru UV on the matrix in the presence of H2O in the air. If your RH drops below 40% RCI and PHI will not work so hot. The Uv and the Catalyst create the oxidisers, the oxidisers kill the microbes, not the UV.
08-04-2007, 12:13 PM
Would bioaerosols mean VOC's?
08-04-2007, 12:32 PM
I believe it is capable of handling some VOC's due to the University of Beijing report which it destroyed fromaldehyde significantly unlike most PCO's that create it from different chemical interactions I guess.
I was under the impression that bioaerosols bio is living so it would pertain to aerosolized organisms. Bioaerosol testing brings up mold spores and air sampling on google so I was correct. It has been a while. I spent hundreds of hours on this board arguing and it took a lot of time where I could have been making money. After my PC crashed I lost a lot of the stuff I had accumulated through thousands of hours of reading and I don't have it in me to do it again. If you read this and the PCO buyer beware thread from the beginning...and the Living air thread you will find the majority of what you can think of for arguments and my answers to them. I cited lots of references too so you can read them yourself.
Plus it destroys odors incredibly fast DSS, goodby tomorrow. provided the conditions are right. Part of the problem is the inexperienced dealers don't take the commercial IAQ course since it isn't manditory unless you want to sell commercial equip which I do. It is the same advanced oxidation specialist training that RGF implimented but you learn a lot. I think the dearlers need to be watched more closely when they are new and the precautions should be stressed more but the product is solid and I stake my mold business on it often.
Don't get me wrong, BE has made some legit points and I have incorperated that knowledge into their application. I just feel their benefit far outways the risks. There are precautions you can take too like only using green cleaners. I use EcoH and it works for almost everything, even glass with no odor or streaking. I know what it can do on microbes. My tub and shower curtains mold within a week of me lending out my unit, religiosly. Clean it up, turn the fresh air on and I never clean my tub...but I am having to change curtains every time I am without the technology. I suppose it is about time I finish biociding the bathroom anyway.
08-04-2007, 04:23 PM
News flash - NASA is buying my filters!
No kidding. I was hoping this topic would come up again. I received a call a few weeks ago from NASA wanting to place an order for filters. They are now a customer. So my filters must be pretty good. They are being used by NASA.
The appropriate response should be - so what? Just as it should be on NASA "using" any other product.
08-04-2007, 04:30 PM
breathe easy.. that made me laugh out loud
08-04-2007, 05:16 PM
How about some "legitimate , researched points" as to the effectiveness of the Eco Quest product.
Originally Posted by NHMoldInspector
NASA's use of similar technology is no endorsement of your product. They are using the technology for something totally different, and it is in a very controlled, enclosed, environment with many other environmental systems in place.
The 2 studies you love to point at were both limited to relatively small volume test chambers, and very limited in scope.
Nothing you have posted indicates in any way that the product is effective, or completely safe, for use in a whole house environment.
Even a tight house exchanges air at a much higher rate than the small amount of air the unit moves. "Chaos theory" doesn't work in a structure that is exchanging its entire volume of air with the outdoors at a faster rate than the device can treat the air in the house.
Show me that it is safe and effective at doing what it claims in a dynamic home sized environment. I don't care about university studies in an enclosed 10x10x8(or whatever) test chamber with stainless steel surfaces. They have very little relevance to my house.
If more government is the answer, then it's a really stupid question.